On Wed May 24, 2023 at 1:32 AM EEST, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > I do worry about how many cases will be reported once 6.4 is released, > and this eventually makes its way into distributions. In either case > the dmi table will need to be maintained. The UPX-11i case is a > different issue, and IIRC the L490 it needed a DMI entry, because > trying to catch the irq storm wasn't solving the issue there. I > imagine other odd cases will be popping up as well. > > So far we have 2 irq storm reports with peterz's P360 Tiny, and I > guess that Inspur system reported by the kernel test robot. Then there > is whatever is going on with Peter Ujfalusi's UPX-11i. Yeah, I agree that we need both in order to reach stability. > > Out of top of my head you could e.g. window average the duration between > > IRQs. When the average goes beyond threshold, then you shutdown > > interrupts. > > Just to make sure I have it clear in my head, you mean when the > average is shorter than the threshold duration between interrupts, > yes? My brain wants to read 'When the average goes beyond threshold' > as 'threshold < average'. > > Does the check need to be a rolling window like 1/2 currently has? I > expect that if the problem exists it will be noticed in the first > window checked. I think what I originally tried was to check over some > interval from when the handler first ran, disable interrupts if > needed, and then skip the check from then on when the handler ran. How about just: average' = (average / (then - now)) /2 And if average' > thershold, disable interrupts. BR, Jarkko
